Genghis Khan gets a bad rap for some of the things he's done - but he was one of the most effective leaders we have ever seen, one of the best military commanders and made the lives of his people better than any other civilization at the time.

Alright, now lets hear all the blithering from the peaceniks :rant:

but he was one of the most effective leaders we have ever seen, one of the best military commanders effective doesn't necessarily mean good.
and made the lives of his people better than any other civilization at the time.vampirism is so passe'...

Depends on what you mean by good - he wasn't good to other civilizations, but if they gave tribute to him and sucumbed to his rule then they were left alone.

I love studying history. But one thing I've noticed, especially with ancient history. Is people fail to put things in perspective.

You get to reading all of the great things they did and their victoried in the millitary campaigns, but you forget they were real flesh and blood people dying so you could remember their names. Sure human life wasn't worth that much back then, but a lot of those men and women that died for these conquerers glory, had family somewhere that morned their loss.

You definately didn't want to be on the other side's army when going up against Kahn.

As for tyrants getting respect, I understand in the real Transylvania Vlad the Impaler is seen as folk hero. Under his rule it was said there was almost no crime, that you could leave a pot of gold out in the streets and no one would take it, because they feared what he would do. (hows that for vampirism?):p

Ghenghis conquered Chinese peoples who offered no resistance.
He and his troops also slaughtered women and children by the literal thousands in other places.

IMHO, he lacks nobility, tho in recent times he gets more respect from historians.

I believe Alexander's army could have conquered Ghenghis' as Alex conquered a similar foe as the Mongols in the Scythians. Ghenghis also would have probably lost to Hannibal, Napoleon, and Scipio Africanus. I consider him over-rated as a military commander but that's just my 2 cents.

Ghenghis conquered Chinese peoples who offered no resistance.
He and his troops also slaughtered women and children by the literal thousands in other places.

IMHO, he lacks nobility, tho in recent times he gets more respect from historians.

I believe Alexander's army could have conquered Ghenghis' as Alex conquered a similar foe as the Mongols in the Scythians. Ghenghis also would have probably lost to Hannibal, Napoleon, and Scipio Africanus. I consider him over-rated as a military commander but that's just my 2 cents.

Ghenghis had no equal before the gun was developed. He used a bow that took two weeks to make and had warriors trained from childhood to be champion warriors. When the romans put up their leather sheild to Ghenghis' men they used the shield as a target and the arrow went through the shield and the body armour to kill the Roman. The Romans defeated Hannibal so could Ghenghis.

Who wrote the history of Ghenghis? His enemies. I don't think he had a written language.

“Management Secrets of Genghis Khan”, by Isaac Cheifetz, Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 17, 2005

Nearly 800 years after his death, Genghis Khan is widely considered the greatest conqueror in history. Between 1206 and 1258 A.D., Khan and his immediate descendants conquered nearly all of Asia and much of central Europe. Only the death of Genghis Khan's son, Ogadai, in 1241 kept the Mongolian "hordes" from devastating the rest of Europe.

The Mongols are a fascinating organizational case study. How did nomadic tribes from a desert at the top of the world create the largest empire in history? The societies they conquered, including China and several major Muslim empires, were far larger and seemingly more sophisticated than the Mongols.

What were the management secrets of Genghis Khan?

1. Leadership: Mongol officers were chosen based on merit, rather than class, in contrast to most armies of the Middle Ages. Even Genghis Khan's successor was voted on by his three sons; the two oldest avoided civil war by selecting their baby brother, Ogadai, whom they served loyally.

he Mongols' egalitarian management and succession style, and openness to new tools and ideas, led to long-term stability for their empire, which lasted for hundreds of years. In most areas of Asia, they were never conquered but were gradually assimilated into the local populations.

2. Lean Organization: The Mongol "horde" was anything but disorganized. Here is a description on the Mongols in action, taken from author Cecelia Holland's book "What If - The Death that Saved Europe - The Mongols Turn Back 1242":

"The Mongol army looked strikingly like a modern army, set down in a medieval world... [a Mongol general] coordinated the movements of tens of thousands of men, across mountain ranges and in unknown territory, as precisely as movements on a chessboard. In battle, through a signaling system of colored banners, he could advance thousands of men at a time, send them back, turn them, and direct their charges -- and when he gave orders, his men did instantly what they were told."

The Mongols' structure, then, had many of the attributes 21st-century companies strive for: disciplined and efficient yet flexible; accurate communicating of decision in real time; and efficient use of resources in a variety of innovative ways.

3. Lean Technology: The transportation and weapons of the Mongols also fostered flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances. Consider this description from Erik Hildinger's June 1997 article in Military History magazine titled "Mongol Invasion of Europe":

"The Mongol bow was a recurved composite bow, a lamination of wood, horn and sinew that could cast an arrow more than 300 yards. The Mongols shot their arrows with great accuracy while riding at a fast pace and could even shoot accurately backward at a pursuer.... The Mongol rode a pony that was considerably smaller than the war charger of the Western armies. The Asiatic animal, however, had superb endurance and survived by grazing in the wild. Each Mongol soldier had two, three or even four ponies so that he could spell them on a march and save them from exhaustion....That practice allowed Mongol armies to travel 50 or even 60 miles in a day, several times the distance that a Western army of the period could travel."

4. Technology Transfer: The Mongols did not have a written language, and they had little specialized technology, aside from the composite bow. But they were not intimidated or fearful of societies that had these things -- on the contrary, they valued them, and would quickly assimilate the expertise -- and experts -- of the societies they conquered, particularly China. The "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome was not a concern for the Mongols.

5. Aggressive Process as a Strategic Weapon: The combination of organizational self-discipline, flexibility and aggressiveness allowed the Mongols to defeat larger armies of that era that were rigidly organized, and whose discipline was superficial.

The Mongols cultivated these efficient, collaborative qualities in their horsemen from an early age by their traditional hunt on the Mongolian steppe, where they would encircle large numbers of animals and gradually herd them together for butchering, rather than chasing them down individually.

Not a Moral Model

Like the pillaging Vikings of several centuries earlier, Genghis Khan is clearly not a moral role model. He deliberately and brutally devastated most everyone in his path. He was more interested in acquiring trading routes and technology than subjects, and his hordes routinely killed the entire populations of cities that resisted them.

Interestingly, historians suggest that the Mongols were not necessarily more bloodthirsty than the societies they conquered, only more ruthlessly efficient. They did treat loyal subjects fairly and, as nature-worshipping animists, did not oppress people or societies for ideological motives -- in an era where religious wars and massacres were the norm.

Modern Comparisons

But there are striking parallels between the management secrets of Genghis Khan and some of the most successful modern corporations.

Microsoft, Wal-Mart and Dell, for example, all dominate their industries through organization self-discipline, flexibility and aggressiveness. Like the Mongols, they are criticized as ruthless and lacking innovation. In truth, all three companies are brilliant organization innovators.

Additionally, General Electric's use of Six Sigma process improvement as an aggressive weapon for change has much in common with the Mongols highly organized, flexible and ruthless organization.

Genghis Khan can be thought of as the first "lean" executive, brilliantly organized and able to use his resources to optimize efficiency and flexibility. He had many of the attributes of a modern executive and aggressively intertwined people, process, and technology, in both strategy and execution.

Pendragon,

You are mixing Vlad Tepes with Ghenghis Khan. It was in Mongolia that a virgin could ride across the country carrying a bag of gold and not be molested if she possessed a safe conduct from the Khan, not Wallachia.

Vlad Tepes, also know as Vlad the Imapler or Vlad Dracula (son of Dracul, the Dragon) is a national hero because he fought against the Moslem Turks. It has little or anything to do with his cruelty.

Vlad II, also known as Vlad Tepes (the impaler) was he son of Vlad II who had been made ruler of Wallachia by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund of Luxemburg. Vlad II belonged to the Order of the Dragon, a knightly order formed to fight the Ottoman Turks. The word for Dragon in the local language is Drak, and ul is the article, so he was called Vlad Drakul or in English, Vlad Dracul. Drakula simply meant son of Drakul.

Wallachia was an area fought over by the Turks and the Romanians and its rulers sometimes sided with one side and sometimes with the other. Vlad Drakul sent two of his sons to the court of Murad II as hostages. These were Vlad and his younger brother Radu. They stayed there for about four years.

Vlad II (the father) and his oldest son Mircea were killed by disloyal boyars. Mircea was buried alive. Vlad III (Tepes, the Impaler) got his revenge when he became ruler of Wallachia. He invited the boyars and their families to a banquet and then had the older ones impaled on stakes and the younger ones driven to his castle which he forced them to repair. He worked them to death.

Vlad Drakula was a cruel ruler who insisted that his people be both honest, and in the case of women, chaste. Dishonest merchants were impaled on stakes as were unchaste women.

Despite having an agreement with Mehmet II, the successor to Murad II, Vlad was forced to fight against the Turks. He was killed in a battle and his head was taken back by the Turks to be displayed on a stake as proof that he was dead.

It's very interesting to speculate if Ghenghis could have defeated Alexander, Hannibal, et al.

Herre's something interesting:

************************************************** ****

Alexander's army was the most balanced, well trained army of its time. The combination of light cav. and inf. combined with the hammer and anvil tactics he employed would have defeated the Mongols light cav. tactics in short time.
Alex and the boys were routinely used to engaging and defeating numerically superior armies.
The short, fast Mongol ponies were well suited to the task of engaging massed infantry with hit and run tactics, but they would be met with massed bowfire from Alexander's army and run down by the Companion wedges from the flanks before the day was done.

************************************************** ***


Now, am wondering how Genghis would have defeated Hannibal Barca?

Great post old reb - that's basically the short and dirty of the Khan

Alexander's army was the most balanced, well trained army of its time. The combination of light cav. and inf. combined with the hammer and anvil tactics he employed would have defeated the Mongols light cav. tactics in short time.
The Macedonian formation which Alexander used was made primarily of phalanx (infantry) which would not have been able to touch the Mongols. Khan's army was 100% light cavalry bowmen.

Alex and the boys were routinely used to engaging and defeating numerically superior armies.
Every one of Khan's victories that was actually recorded and worth reading was against superior numbers.

The short, fast Mongol ponies were well suited to the task of engaging massed infantry with hit and run tactics, but they would be met with massed bowfire from Alexander's army and run down by the Companion wedges from the flanks before the day was done.
Alexander's army didn't have a huge number of bowmen, and the companions had 12 foot lances (and heavy armor) which would do nothing against the faster and lighter mongol horses. Look at all the battles against the heavy cavalry of the western empires of the time.

If you enjoy books on history and wars I strongly recommend "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World"

This is a great thread---I don't know a lot about military tactics, but my oldest son is a bit of a buff--he has read this thread and this is his response--



Be aware of the tactics. The Mongols *always* engaged the enemy at a distance, the enemy of that day being infantry and lightly armored cav., then feigned retreat to draw the enemy out and disorder him in preparation of a charge of their heavy cav. who would charge into the disordered ranks and rout the remenants.
Also be aware that Alexander's army put light missile troops in front of the main body to harrass and absorb. Alexander, as a commander, would be aware of the enemy's tactics and make adjustments as only his army would be able to as a result of their versatility.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's examine the standard tactics of the Mongol army.
With few variations, this consisted of a massive charge of heavy cavalry straight up the middle supported by light cav on the flanks. Remember that the mongol army was almost *all* cavalry.
Alexander's standard formation was phalanxes of pikes (18 footers) in the center behind bow and sling armed light infantry supported on the flanks by wedges of heavy cav supported by bow-armed light cav.
What options do the mongols have here?
Their heavy cav would be met and weakened by the stones and arrows of the light missile troops who would, before contact with the HC, would conduct a strategic withdrawal through the ranks of the pikemen who would then close ranks and present a solid wall of steel to the mongol HC who would simply f** die.

The mongol LC would be harrased by the Macadonian LC (not nearly as effective as the mongols, to be fair) and run down by the Macaonian HC.

What options do the Mongols have? Absent infantry, few really.
************************************************** *****


PS He ought to register on here and post his stuff himseff--Rendova

Your son seems to know what he's talking about, I'll give him that
Be aware of the tactics. The Mongols *always* engaged the enemy at a distance, the enemy of that day being infantry and lightly armored cav., then feigned retreat to draw the enemy out and disorder him in preparation of a charge of their heavy cav. who would charge into the disordered ranks and rout the remenants.
Absolutely right

Also be aware that Alexander's army put light missile troops in front of the main body to harrass and absorb. Alexander, as a commander, would be aware of the enemy's tactics and make adjustments as only his army would be able to as a result of their versatility.
Alexander's bows and slings were far inferior to the mongol's reflex bows, which had greater range and accuracy - which meant that the mongols, with their greater manuverability, could stay out of range of the light missle troops, while still able to hit them.

Let's examine the standard tactics of the Mongol army.
With few variations, this consisted of a massive charge of heavy cavalry straight up the middle supported by light cav on the flanks. Remember that the mongol army was almost *all* cavalry.
Correct with one exception - the mongols didn't employ heavy cavalry. They used light armor, usually with less or no protection for their backs.

Now their tactics often consisted of a massive charge when they faced infantry with melee weapons, though they would stop before getting into range, fire a round, then retreat so-as to leave nothing for the infantry to retaliate against.

Alexander's standard formation was phalanxes of pikes (18 footers) in the center behind bow and sling armed light infantry supported on the flanks by wedges of heavy cav supported by bow-armed light cav.
What options do the mongols have here?
The phalanxes would ward off heavy cavalry of melee weapons, though they would do nothing against the mongols, since the mongols would not get in range of the pikes (or the bows and slings for that matter).

Their heavy cav would be met and weakened by the stones and arrows of the light missile troops who would, before contact with the HC, would conduct a strategic withdrawal through the ranks of the pikemen who would then close ranks and present a solid wall of steel to the mongol HC who would simply f** die.

The mainstay mongol tactic was strategic retreat, and never hand-to-hand combat, as they hated the sight of human blood. They would not get in range of the pikemen, and likely they would wait the army out since the mongol army relied on horse-blood / condensed milk and sometimes meat for surviving. They survived without a supply-train. A supply-train could easily be assaulted and which (I believe, I may be wrong though) Alexander used frequently for his army.

The mongol LC would be harrased by the Macadonian LC (not nearly as effective as the mongols, to be fair) and run down by the Macaonian HC.
At least we agree on the LC, though I doubt that Alexander's HC would be able to chase down the mongol army since they were much heavier and more encumbered.

Tell your son that he should go and make an account

Every one of Khan's victories that was actually recorded and worth reading was against superior numbers.

Bah! He'd be no match for even the smallest tactical nuke.

[Sorry, just being a smartass. I'll go away now.]

Psssh, Khan would just eat the nuke whole :p

I'm surprised that no one brought up the pillaging and destruction of the better part of the world

The Mongol's were known for adopting ideas from defeated enemies. They did not simply rely on light cavalry. They were quite capable of engaging in seige warfare.

Rather than attacking Alexander's army the Mongols would have used the tactic they learned from childhood. When hunting, the Mongols did not ride willy nilly after animals. Instead, they encircled the animals and slowly made the circle smaller and smaller, confining the animals into a tightly circumscribed bunch ready for slaughter. They would have done the same to Alexander's army. Rather than charging they would have encircled his army and simply waited him out. As was previously stated, the Mongols could easily live off the land. In fact, they needed nothing from the land other than grazing for their steppe ponies. They could survive on horse blood which they got by puncturing a vein in the horse's neck with an arrow, horse milk, yoghurt and horse meat tenderized by being placed beneath their saddle.

Alexander's army did not have this ability to create their own food and had to rely on foraging. The Mongols would have kept them from doing this. Any foraging groups would have been easily overtaken by the Mongols and dispatched while the main army was kept encircled.

Wow, I like this thread I too am learning a lot.

Frogger Most of the history of Vlad that you relayed I was familiar with. Not sure how I got the one point about the gold confused, but I appreciate the assist.

Also I too would worry about broken supply lines for Alexander's forces. The Mongols were more used to living off the land and such. However the argument just assumes the Mongols would surround Alexander's army without a problem. I can't see Alexander just letting them be surrounded like that and waiting for the slaughter.

Although I believe I had read of Kahn using that type of tactic against others, I just don't think Alexander would let it happen. Who would win, I don't know but it's fun to think about it.

Since Alexander's main fighting force was the phalanx he would have had no choice but to keep his army close together. While he had a light cavalry that sometimes proved decisive in battle it worked only in conjunction with the massed infantry. If he suspected that the Mongols were trying to encircle him he would have had two choices, to seperate his forces, something suicidal, or to stand his ground, something equally suicidal, just taking longer to play out.

With their superior bows the Mongols could have stayed out of range and picked off Alexander's army. Had Alexander's cavalry tried to engage them the Mongols would have used their usual tactic of strategic retreat, shooting over their backs (something they did with great accuracy) and then wheeling about once the Macedonian cavalry was sufficiently far from the infantry.

The Mongols were superb fighters. They conquered other peoples who were horse riding nomads. The conquered the fortified cities of China and Arabia. The conquered Alamut, the mountain stronghold of The Old Man Of The Mountain. The only thing that stopped the Mongol conquest of all of Europe was the death of the Khan that required them to break off the war and return to Mongolia for a kurultai.

good posts frogger, though the technology the the mongols amassed through the knowledge of those that they conquered helped much more in seiges than in army on army warfare. The catapults, explosives, engineering and other technologies would be very hard to use in the field.

One particular tactic used in a few seiges that I enjoyed reading about was used often in Northern China, though I forget the actual places. The mongol army terrorized all the neighboring villages and forced the civilians to find refuge in the nearby castle. The extra population would eat up all the supplies of food and cause general panic in the castle - in one case, the ruler killed off a huge portion of those who sought refuge there, simply because it diminished the chances of the other people surviving, but that caused more panic and disorder.

I remember very little of the history I was taught in school. However, I do remember Alexander's use of heavy cavalry. It was therefore a little surprising to read the followingWhile he had a light cavalry that sometimes proved decisive in battle it worked only in conjunction with the massed infantry.
A Google search "alexander heavy cavalry" gave many results detailing the use of heavy cavalry by Alexander. This obviously contradicts your assertion. Can you give me references please so that I can more readily understand your argument?

"The main infantry corps was the phalanx, composed of six regiments (taxies) numbering about 2000 phalangites each."

"The heavy cavalry included the Companion cavalry raised from the Macedonian nobility, and the Thessalian cavalry. The Companion cavalry (hetairoi, friends) was divided into eight squadrons called ile, 200 strong, except the Royal Squadron of 300." -wikipedia

Total infantry: 12,000
Total cavalry: 1,700

Compared to other armies of the time, Alexander had a large cavalry; but the mongols lived in an area where horses outnumbered humans by a large margin.

I was not attempting to determine who wins or loses, but rather the omission of any heavy cavalry.

Neither Philip nor Alexander actually used the phalanx as their arm of choice, but instead used it to hold the enemy in place while their heavy cavalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry) broke through their ranks. The Macedonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedon) cavalry fought in wedge formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_formation) and was stationed on the far right; after these broke through the enemy lines they were followed by the hypaspists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypaspist), elite infantrymen who served as the king (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch)'s bodyguard, and then the phalanx proper. The left flank was generally covered by allied cavalry supplied by the Thessalians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaly), which fought in rhomboid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomboid) formation and served mainly in a defensive role. ... wikipedia.

Yes, Alexander had some heavy cavalry, but in most of his battles it was his rapid light cavalry that was able to maneuver to where it was needed. Heavy cavalry was more a set piece cavalry in ancient warfare. It charged straight ahead and plowed over the opposition. Light cavalry was better able to go where needed as was seen in Alexander's first battle against Darius.

I'd like to read more on Alexander; does anyone know of a good biography on him?

The one in my personal library is Alexander the Great by Paul Cartledge. It is an older book but I highly recommend it.

Thanks, I'll go check it out

Here are two of Alexander's great battles. Notice that the phalanx played an integral part in each, not the cavalry.

"Alexander’s first great victory came against the Persian army in May of 334BC (Mixter 1). Days before the battle, the Persian heads met in Zelea to discuss what should be done regarding battle tactics. The Persians finally decided to push the Macedonian army inland so the Persian army would have time to set up camp along the Granicus River (Mixter 2). At the same time, Alexander caught drift of the Persians’ plans, so he marched his crew for three straight days to a location along the Granicus River (Mixter 3), right outside of Hellespont (Mixter 1). Alexander set up three of the Foot Companion phalanxes on the right side of his army. Parmenion, in charge of the other three phalanxes, set up on the left. Expecting an attack opposite of Alexander, the Persian army moved most of their troops to the left. Then, without warning, the left flank of Alexander’s army led a feint attack (Mixter 3). Even though the Persians were firing down at the Macedonians with javelins, Alexander’s goal of putting the left flank of the Persian army in disarray was achieved. Soon after the feint attack, Alexander released his Royal Squadron, or his main attack. With the center of both armies in a mess, Alexander faced serious trouble as he battled in separate duels. During the third duel, Alexander came close to death when a Persian officer came close to spearing him in the back. Luckily, Cleitus stabbed the Persian to death right at the last moment. Fortunately for Alexander, his life was saved, and the Macedonians were beginning to crush the Persians on all sides (Mixter 4).

With all sides defeated, Memnon and the Persian army fled from their positions, and the Macedonians had won the battle. Arian, a Greek historian, projected that 115 men from the Macedonian army and 4,000 men from the Persian army lost their lives in battle. And on top of that, the Persians’ had failed in attempting to kill Alexander (Mixter 5). However, they would get their second chance just one year later.

In September of 333BC (Hackney 2), Alexander and Darius finally met in battle for the first time ("Alexander The Great" 1). Days before the Battle of Issus, Alexander unknowingly marched his men south from Issus to meet up with Darius, when in fact, at the same time, Darius was marching north to Issus to fight in battle against Alexander. Upon arrival,, Darius destroyed a Macedonian hospital that was built just days before to house the wounded men in action. Next, Darius ordered Nabarzane, commander of the Persian army in the battle (Renault 92), to set up the troops along the Pinarus River (Hackney 2). Once Alexander received word that the Persian army was back in Issus, he headed north again (Renault 92), approximately another thirty miles (Hackney 2). Once Alexander’s men set up upon arrival to Issus, the battle was ready to begin.

With everyone in position, the Battle of Issus was underway, with Darius’ most skilled squadrons fighting Parmenio and the Macedonian Phalanxes (Hackney 2). Soon, a gap opened in the center of the Macedonian army, and the Persian Royal Bodyguard penetrated it. However, the Thessalians joined the Macedonian Phalanxes and started to slaughter the Royal Bodyguard. Darius had given up hope. Fearing the worst, Darius fled on horseback with Alexander hot on his heels. With the absence of Darius and the best squadrons defeated, Nabarzane surrendered. Alexander had prevailed in the first of many great battles with Darius that would span over a nine year period until Alexander’s death. (Hackney 3). A death, that is still in question today."

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/03/tucker/

Alexander the Great and His Time by Agnes Savill and In the Footsteps of Alexander by the respected classical historian Michael Grant are two good reads about this almost mythical figure, windwip--one of the coolest men in all history, if not THE coolest.

Let's face it--he was practically a god, as my son says--also an Alex buff--yep, moms is raising him right.

He was like a little boy seeking adventure, when all is said and done, and I wonder exactly how seriously he took this business--that is, seeing himself as a god. One thing's for sure--after his excursion into Egypt, he was never the same.

PS Two excellent historical fiction books about this man are Fire From Heaven and The Persian Boy both by the great historian Mary Renault. Superb and go into depth on his character.

Edit for error--It was Michael WOOD, not Grant, who wrote the Alex book.
My bad and thirty lashes for me for that one.

Read them both, rendova, and like all Mary Renault books they are historically quite accurate.

It is difficult to compare to military commanders from periods a thousand years apart. I suspect the Mongols would have defeated Alexander if each army were equipped with the technology of their own day, and fought with the tactics they had available in their times. This makes as much sense as saying that Rommel is the superior commander because his Africa Corps would have mopped up the mongols.

If Alexander had been around at the time of Ghengis Khan, he would have had a different army than what he had in his own time. It would have been an interesting match. I suspect each would have adapted their tactics to the other's. I do not know who would have been the victor.

It's funny how quickly the article turned from 'Was Khan good or evil?' to 'Alexander vs. Genghis Khan'

It's funny how quickly the article turned from 'Was Khan good or evil?' to 'Alexander vs. Genghis Khan'
*holds of sign that reads: 'Ghengis the Mighty' and cheers*

rendova, if you like Michael Grant read his Roman history books. They are much better than his Alexander stuff.

I had several of his books, frogger, but oldest daughter, who's a graduate student in Classical Studies at IU, took them away for her own use several years ago and I haven't seen them since....at least she's found them to be helpful in her studies!

It's funny how quickly the article turned from 'Was Khan good or evil?' to 'Alexander vs. Genghis Khan'

LOL, probably because it's interesting ( at least to me) to compare the would-be world conquerers.

Oh I'm not complaining. I actually just bought a book on Alexander the Great because of this thread

Imagineer,

I agree. Very difficult to compare if they used the same technology. And actually, they lived more like 1,500 years apart. Incidently, as far as I know, Alexander's cavalry did not use stirrups and Genghis' cavalry did. That in itself would make a huge difference.

Those who wish to comment on Genghis Kahn should be aware that the long rumored secret history of the Mongols was only discovered about 125 years ago and translations were only published about 15 years ago. If they have not read about that secret history, they are likely mis-informed about some aspects of Genghis and his conquests. For more info, see a book that was recommended earlier and that I too recommend, "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", by Jack Weatherford.

Stirrups were only one of the differences. Another major advantage would be the use of composite recurved bows by the Mongols. Alexander had no mounted archers because the bows were to large to be fired effectively from horseback. The recurved bows of the Mongols made their mounted archers quite effective.

I have to question the idea that an Alexander lead army with European weapons up to date with Mongols would have been effective. Alexander's skill would certainly count for something but we have to remember that two large European armies were annihilated by Mongols. When discussing something like this we have to ask a few questions:

- are we assuming Alexander has intelligence on the Mongols? If I'm not mistaken the Europeans had no idea who they were up against. Intercontinental communication wasn't big back then.

- are we assuming Alexander is exactly the same as his historical Macedonian self? If you place him in Khan's time period he would certainly be a Christian which I believe would have an effect on how he handles himself and war.

Just to clarify, I have no sources for what I've said, I'm just remembering what I learned in the one lecture I had in one of my classes on the Mongols.

Alexander's army was not able to live off the land. They had to conquer settled people's in order to survive. The Mongols on the other hand were able to survive quite well on their own. This alone gives a strategic advantage to the Mongols. The Mongols were also able to move far greater distances with their entire army much more quickly than Alexander's troops could.

Just look at what the Golden Horde under Batu and his general Ogedei did in Russia and eastern Europe.

I'm wondering tho, ( and please keep in mind that I'm no military tactitian or historian) but why it is that Genghis ranks so low in polls of great military leaders of history, and Alex, time and time again, ranks first.

Versatility?
The conquering of much larger armies?
Seige warfare?
There must be a reason.........

While Alexander had cavalry he depended mostly on his hoplites formed into the famed Greek phalanx. The problem with the phalanx is that while manueverable it is slow. The hoplites also carried two types of pikes, long and short. The long pike was about 18' long and extremely heavy. Even the short pike was quite heavy. Because of this the Greeks carried fairly small shields. Large shields would have been too heavy and unweildy.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/classics/dawhite/a_hoplit.jpg

The Greek bowmen also used the standard bow of the day, a bow that was too large and unweildy to be fired from horseback. The Mongols used a shorter, recurved, composite bow that was easily fired from horseback and that had a greater range than the Greek bow. The Mongols were also among the best archers in the world. They would have stayed out of range of the Greek bowmen and the Greek phalanx and simply picked off Alexander's men one by one in a war of attrition.

Alexander might have been the better general but Ghenghis Khan had the far better army.

Alexander was used to fighting only in warm climates. The Mongols fought wherever they found themselves. The Golden Horde of Batu, under the generalship of Ogedei was the only army to ever conquer Russia during the winter.

If the Greeks fortified themselves within a city the Mongols would still beat them. They were the only group able to defeat the Old Man of the Mountain and enter his mountain fortress at Alamut.

Hands down, the Mongols would have totally defeated the Macedonians.

thanks Frogger--that makes sense.


(Are you sure that Genghis wouldn't have been blinded by Alexander's beauty and thus lost the field?? :) )


http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3741/alexhea2fl3.jpg

He's got a Michael Jackson nose.:lolhit:

I'm wondering tho, ( and please keep in mind that I'm no military tactitian or historian) but why it is that Genghis ranks so low in polls of great military leaders of history, and Alex, time and time again, ranks first.


I think a lot of that has to do with propeganda - during Khan's years he helped to spread the rumors of the evil and inhuman things he did. Historians wrote things about the mongols being sent by the devil - or as a punishment sent from God since they did not understand them. It was only recently that the Secret History was translated and accounted for much of Mongol history.

Alexander however helped history remember him as a great military commander, and (at least from what the books say) he was very brave in battle. The mongols did not value individual bravery in the same manner, they would readily kill enemies by flooding them, torching them or starving them to death, just as long as it saved mongol life.

This also makes sense.
Propaganda is a powerful tool.

Ghengis had no real impact on western culture,whereas Alex was a Geek,I mean Greek.

Ghengis had no real impact on western culture
The Mongols invaded Europe, the Middle East, Russia, and China. While their legacy might not be as clearcut as other empires, they certainly had an impact on a global scale.

Even if they had no effect to the West, does it matter? There are other parts of the world.

It matters in western education,were it dosent have an impact,its generally ignored.

It matters in western education,were it dosent have an impact,its generally ignored.
Yeah, screw China and the Indies, those non-issues. Eh paul?

The Mongols did have an effect on Western culture.

They changed Kiev, Novogorod and Moscow and that had an effect on Western culture. They defeated the Khwazarians and other nations that dealt with the West and that had an effect on Western culture. Alexander's major effect was on the East but because he was a white skinned European we tend to think he had a greater effect on Europe and Western culture. Just what effect did his conquest of the Parthian Empire and parts of the Mogul Empire have on Western culture?

Yeah, screw China and the Indies, those non-issues. Eh paul?
A yea,thats more or less my point,evak.

A yea,thats more or less my point,evak.
That's neither funny, nor a positive thing. China, India, Indonesia and other populous nations account for half the world, just because you are an Irishman doesn't mean the world outside of Europe and North America is useless.

It wasnt meant as a joke either,Im not saying the rest of the world is useless,tho it is amusing,unless you go into specific areas of history,eastern subjects dont come up that often,I dont know what its like in good old Texas,a lot of your history is Mexican I guess.

It wasnt meant as a joke either,Im not saying the rest of the world is useless,tho it is amusing,unless you go into specific areas of history,eastern subjects dont come up that often
That's because we have an Occidental World bias. When China arises as the world's superpower, I doubt we'll hear you express the same oblivious sentiment to Asian history and culture.
I dont know what its like in good old Texas,a lot of your history is Mexican I guess.
Nope, Texas is part of the United States of America, and has been for a long time. It's history before that period was not all that significant or intricate. Before the Spanish arrived, it was ruled by Indians, then the Spanish, then the French, then the Mexicans, then Texas became a country in it's own right for a few years (later selling itself to the US). After that, America went through a massive civil war where Texas joined the "Confederate States of America" for a few years, then back to the good ol' US of A.

Because of the many flags it has been ruled under, and the fact that it was once a country by itself, Texans have an inflated sense of value as opposed to other Americans. Unless you live in Austin or your name is Evakian, then you're just strange and different from the norm.

Well Asian history hasnt overtly impacted on western europe,tho its economics have,if China becomes the new bullyboy of the world,then we're all in the shit,american and european both.
You could get into hot water claiming Texans are better Americans than the rest,dont you mean bigger ego's.

You could get into hot water claiming Texans are better Americans than the rest,dont you mean bigger ego's.
Read what I said:

"Because of the many flags it has been ruled under, and the fact that it was once a country by itself, Texans have an inflated sense of value as opposed to other Americans. Unless you live in Austin or your name is Evakian, then you're just strange and different from the norm."

read it

Texas would have kicked Genghis Khan's ass.

Just ask USC.

I seen that film were the mexicans kicked some texan ass,cant remember its name just now.

The Alamo, last stand for many brave and famous guys like Davy Crockett, Col Travis, and Jim Bowie.

The Mexicans later spread the rumor that Davy died an ignoble death by cowering behind some furniture during the whole shebang, and then having to be dragged out to be shot.

The Texans said he died like a man by shooting and killing, single-handedly, dozens of Santa Anna's men.

Somehow I just can't picture either scenario but I have a hard time believing Davy cowered behind furniture....

"Davy, Davy Crockett.
King of the Wild Frontier......"

A propaganda war,even way back then.

I seen that film were the mexicans kicked some texan ass,cant remember its name just now.
Yes, because 6,000 Mexicans against 127 Texans is a definitely going to come out as a Texan victory.

If they kicked our behind so badly, we wouldn't have become a country and later part of the US.
Somehow I just can't picture either scenario
He was said to be a good shot, and if several men were loading guns for him he could easily wipe out two dozen soldiers.

Genghis Kahn would have kicked Mexican ass.

Though not as bad as Texas would kick ass on Genghis Kahn.

(Just trying to steer the thread back on-topic). :)

Youd need to be a good shot,shooting from behind the sideboard.